Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of tribunal decisions

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

JOOMTHONG PANATDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1416/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and its conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were viable fall within the Board's fact-finding remit and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated.
1 Mar 2024

黃智鴻對曾立民經營深情公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2023

Allowing witnesses to introduce new oral evidence that was not in their witness statements and then relying on the appellant's prior drinking for credibility constituted procedural unfairness and a legal error; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the tribunal's order is set aside, with no costs and no remittal because the parties agreed not to pursue their claims.
2 Jan 2015

ORRICO, PHILIPPE AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD

Citation

ORRICO, PHILIPPE AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL24/2014

Leave to appeal was granted because the decision on costs raised questions of general principle (application of English authorities on costs against non‑participating tribunals and the meaning of "flagrant instance of improper behaviour") and it is in the interests of justice that those questions be determined on appeal; consequential directions granted to permit amendment of the Notice of Appeal and to make costs of the leave application costs in the cause of the appeal.
12 Mar 2010

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2009

Regulation 41(1) of the Building (Planning) Regulations applies to building works carried out or to be carried out in existing buildings as well as new buildings; no legal distinction is to be drawn between new and existing buildings or between structural and non‑structural works for the purpose of the regulation, and the Appeal Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.
26 Apr 1988

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN

Citation

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP381/1988

The Tribunal's decision was quashed because the law permits variation of a limit of stay only while it is in force; each overstay interrupted lawful ordinary residence so the respondent could not satisfy the statutory continuous 7-year lawful residence requirement for permanent residence/right of abode, and the Tribunal's contrary legal conclusion was an error apparent on the face of the record.
20 Oct 1986

RE CHOW CHIN WO

Citation

RE CHOW CHIN WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1149/1986

The Court held that the Insider Dealing Tribunal is amenable to judicial review but no interference was warranted: the Tribunal applied a stringent standard of proof to the applicants' advantage, afforded sufficient notice and opportunity, and its findings that key individuals and companies were involved and culpable were supported by cogent primary facts and permissible inferences under the Securities Ordinance including the power to attribute conduct to directing minds of corporations.

Hong Kong Case Law

JOOMTHONG PANATDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

黃智鴻 對 曾立民經營深情公司

ORRICO, PHILIPPE AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL SERVICES APPEALS BOARD

BUILDING AUTHORITY v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN

RE CHOW CHIN WO

黃智鴻對曾立民經營深情公司